321 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15705711)
1. Dealing with editorial misconduct: what about relationship with reviewers and authors?
Laube RE
BMJ; 2005 Feb; 330(7487):364. PubMed ID: 15705711
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer review and scientific misconduct: bad authors and trusting reviewers.
Malay DS
J Foot Ankle Surg; 2009; 48(3):283-4. PubMed ID: 19423027
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. [Authorship and co-authorship].
Haug C
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Feb; 126(4):429. PubMed ID: 16477275
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [Big and small research fraud].
Nylenna M
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Aug; 126(16):2089. PubMed ID: 16932774
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. [Copy is fraudulent--but what is the consequence?].
Nielsen OH; Schroeder TV
Ugeskr Laeger; 2006 Nov; 168(45):3891. PubMed ID: 17118247
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. A matter of trust: introducing the journal scientific integrity policy.
McDonald JM; Eisemann MG; Cox AE
Am J Pathol; 2007 Jul; 171(1):1. PubMed ID: 17591946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Editorial: enhancing the quality of dialogue among editors, authors, and reviewers in editorial review.
Drotar D
J Pediatr Psychol; 2011 Sep; 36(8):847-51. PubMed ID: 21835773
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. [Investigation of scientific fraud. Statements from the Swedish Research Council not sufficiently normative].
Werkö L
Lakartidningen; 2006 Oct 25-31; 103(43):3288-91. PubMed ID: 17117661
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The manuscript review process.
Triadafilopoulos G
Gastrointest Endosc; 2006 Dec; 64(6 Suppl):S23-5. PubMed ID: 17113850
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Editorial: thoughts on establishing research significance and preserving scientific integrity.
Drotar D
J Pediatr Psychol; 2008; 33(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 17977891
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. A Statement on Ethics From the HEART Group.
HEART Group
Circ Res; 2008 May; 102(9):e104-5. PubMed ID: 18467635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. A statement on ethics from the HEART group.
HEART Group
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2008 May; 71(6):859-61. PubMed ID: 18412086
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school.
Algase DL
Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2008; 22(4):219-21. PubMed ID: 19093658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Promoting ethical conduct in the publication of research.
Freedman JE
Cardiovasc Ther; 2008; 26(2):89-90. PubMed ID: 18485131
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Spoof research paper is accepted by 157 journals.
Hawkes N
BMJ; 2013 Oct; 347():f5975. PubMed ID: 24096966
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Responding to fraud.
Kennedy D
Science; 2006 Dec; 314(5804):1353. PubMed ID: 17138870
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Misconduct in scientific publishing.
Chan DL
J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio); 2011 Jun; 21(3):181-3. PubMed ID: 21631701
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.
Clark RK
Br Dent J; 2012 Aug; 213(4):153-4. PubMed ID: 22918342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. When R & R is not rest & recovery but revise & resubmit.
Bearinger LH; Taliaferro L; Given B
Res Nurs Health; 2010 Oct; 33(5):381-5. PubMed ID: 20827742
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Ongoing problems with authorship.
Heinemann MK
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2011 Sep; 59(6):321. PubMed ID: 21901651
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
